"No Black Bars" sticker on new Sound of Music disc (1 Viewer)

[Ned]

Or like this for accuracy of what's inside.

 

[Jenna]

That about sums it up, Ned!

 

[Eric_R_C]

---------------------------------------------------------
The "choice" of a film's original aspect ratio should only be in the hands of the filmakers, not the consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------

What about when the filmaker DOESN'T use (what we would consider to be) the "appropriate" aspect ratio, such as Kubrick's releases of Eyes Wide Shut and the Shining? There's still debate about whether this was his actual intent.
I, for one, would love to see the Shining in widescreen (without using a projecter and screen mat)
BTW, my ONLY MAR title is Hooper, of which I seriously doubt it'll ever be released in widescreen. I'm not as serious as some of the OAR-only people, but I do prefer anamorphic titles (which is why I never bought the re-release of Predator.)

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Alright, anyone care to top that!?
That's great!

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Eric,
The Shining would look pretty bad in widescreen because Kubrick didn't want it in widescreen, he wanted 1.33:1, and that's what he composed for. If you matte that film to even the slightest degree, you'll ruin the wonderful compositions. Notice the constant use of ceiling's, walls, and furniture to create a kind of vanishing point effect, it's presant throughout the film, and its quite a lot of fun to spot them.
They would be ruined if matted at all.

 

[Randall Dorr]

Am I the only one who thinks some of the blame belongs with filmmakers and DVD producers?

It's true that many average DVD buyers know the difference between WS and P&S and still want the latter. But I honestly feel the vast majority who prefer P&S just don't know the difference.

As a consumer, I do what I can: Only buy OAR, explain the difference to the odd uninformed individual, sign a petition, make a phone call to a studio, etc.

But filmmakers and DVD producers, in all the time they spend recording commentaries and interviews, putting documentaries together, and so fourth, could easily make a thirty second featurette that explains widescreen.

"Hi, I'm [filmmaker's name]. I directed this film. It's being presented in it's original theatrical aspect ratio of [film's AR]. What you are seeing is the entire image as it was shown in theaters. You are not losing any of the picture." During this, we might see shots of the film being projected in a theater, a still from the OAR version, and a still of the same shot in P&S.

There have been two or three widescreen demos on DVD(Die Hard, Pearl Harbor VS), but that's just a tiny handful. (And it's pretty darn hard for anyone to see it if it's buried somewhere on the second disc. The explanations really should play automatically as soon as the disc loads.)



I guess there is some hope, in that technology will continue to advance so, one day, it will be possible to have five hundred hours of programming on one disc. You can have the OAR, P&S to 1.33:1, P&S to 1.78:1 for widescreen TVs(if the film was shot 2.35:1), full bit DTS, behind the scenes docs that are twelve hours long, and there's no second disc of supplements that can be dropped.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Randall,
absolutly!
You've certaintly got your head on straight about OAR my man.

 

[Eric_R_C]

I agree with you John. I realized I didn't make my point very clear. I was getting the impression that some people felt that every filmaker's intent was to film in widescreen all the time. Clearly, Kubrick wanted something else. Would some people consider him a non-enthusiast because of this?

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Oh boy, that Cousin Cletus sticker has me gasping for air.

 

[Jesse Skeen]

Are the opening credits on this letterboxed, or are they squeezed like on the old video transfer?

 

[Clinton McClure]

Buying a P&S DVD is like buying non-alcoholic beer....It just ain't right.

 

[Tony-B]

I can top the one Ned did!! (By the way, it really is 1.33:1 )
(problems)

-Tony

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Back to the drawing board, Tony. The pic isn't showing.

Bruce

 

[Jim Ogilvie]

At the risk of potentially flying an idea that might help with this problem that is not unique, I have posted a message in the studio feedback area that I think could be helpful.
Basically, the studios can really play the biggest role of all in helping the public accept OAR presentations in a non heavy handed way.
Here's the thread if you are interested.
Suggestion to studios for addressing OAR education

 

[Tony-B]

Dang! I will work on it! Really, now it should work!

 

[Tim Hoover]

No one cared because the watching a movie on a 19-inch screen with a lousy mono speaker wasn't at all like watching it in the movie threaters.

Paul, many people still feel the same way. The only thing that has changed is the storage medium...

 

[Eric Fisher]

How about we get the TV manufacturers to dump 4:3 and sell only 16:9 sets? then solution will work itself out naturally from there

 

[Patrick McCart]

The sticker should go where it looks like Mrs. Andrews is saying, "The widescreen version is THIS wide! This DVD isn't!"

 

[Thomas Newton]

How about we get the TV manufacturers to dump 4:3 and sell only 16:9 sets? then solution will work itself out naturally from there.

Right now, 16:9 direct view TVs are pricey. A 32" 4:3 HDTV-ready direct view set that provides a height of 14.4" for 16:9 letterbox material costs $1,400 - $1,800; a 30" 16:9 direct-view set providing a 16:9 height of 14.7" costs $2000 or more. Since you are going to get black/gray bars either way, letterboxing on the 4:3 TV is a more cost-effective method to of getting the desired 16:9 display area (especially if the 4:3 set can do the "vertical squeeze").

Jump up to 36" 4:3 direct view TVs vs. 34" 16:9 direct view ones, and you're talking about $2,500+ for the 16:9 set.

Keep in mind that you can buy 32" analog NTSC TVs for under $600. No 4:3 16:9 choice there, or line doubling, but a lot of people don't have $2000+ to spend on a 16:9 HDTV-ready set for NO apparent increase in widescreen picture size, and a quite noticeable decrease in 4:3 picture size.

Better to spend the effort to promote OAR, and to promote shopping for a set that's large enough to display all OARs in a viewable size, than to merely shift people's fixation from "fill the 4:3 screen" to "fill the 16:9 screen".

Else we'll get 16:9 Pan-and-Scan of 2.35:1 pictures, and we really don't want that.

 

[Jeff_HR]

:frowning: Another triumph for the J6Pers of this world. Beware of this growing menace.:frowning: